5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and currently lives in Budva.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 26 April 1998 the applicant and V.K. married and on 12 October 1998 their twins, A and B, were born.
8.  On 5 June 2003, due to marital problems, the applicant moved back to her parents' house in Nikšić, together with the children.
9.  On 22 July 2004 the Social Care Centre in Nikšić (“the NSCC”) issued a decision regulating V.K.'s access to A and B.
10.  It would appear that during this period V.K. had been seeing the children in accordance with this decision.
11.  On 5 January 2005 V.K. took the children for the winter holiday and subsequently refused to return them to the applicant.
12.  On 8 March 2005 the NSCC ordered that the children be returned to the applicant and entrusted the enforcement of that order to the Social Care Centre in Budva (“the BSCC”).
13.  On 14 March 2005 the BSCC, with police assistance, attempted to enforce the order in question, but it appears that V.K.'s parents physically prevented that from happening.
14.  Between April and June 2005, at the applicant's requests, the NSCC issued three additional decisions, urging V.K. to surrender the children. They provided that should V.K. fail to comply with the applicant's custody rights he would be fined, and that, ultimately, forcible enforcement might be called for.
15.  On one occasion thereafter V.K. brought the children to the BSCC but refused to surrender them to the applicant, claiming that the children did not want to live with her.
16.  There is no evidence in the case file indicating that V.K. had been fined or, indeed, that a forcible transfer of custody had been attempted again.
17.  On 23 June 2003 V.K. lodged a claim with the Court of First Instance in Kotor, seeking the dissolution of his marriage to the applicant as well as custody of the children.
18.  On 1 September 2003 the applicant lodged a counter-claim to the same effect.
19.  On 9 March 2004 the presiding judge joined the two claims into a single set of proceedings.
20.  On 5 January 2006 the Court of First Instance: (i) dissolved the marriage, (ii) granted custody of the children to the applicant, and (iii) ordered V.K. to pay monthly child maintenance.
21.  On 5 May 2006 the High Court upheld that judgment and it thereby became final.
22.  On 12 September 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed V.K.'s appeal on points of law (revizija).
23.  On 12 June 2006 the applicant submitted a request for the enforcement of the final judgment.
24.  On 22 June 2006 the Court of First Instance in Kotor issued an enforcement order whereby V.K. was given three days to surrender the children to the applicant. He was also warned that if he failed to comply he could be fined or even subjected to a forcible transfer of custody.
25.  On 21 July 2006 the High Court upheld this order.
26.  On 26 February 2009 the applicant submitted a request for a review (kontrolni zahtjev; see paragraph 46 below) with the Court of First Instance, seeking execution of the enforcement order.
27.  On 5 March 2009 the execution judge (izvršni sudija) informed the President of the court that as it was “impossible to reach an agreement [...] by which the children would be surrendered” to the applicant, the bailiff was ordered to enforce “without delay” the fine of EUR 500 in respect of V.K. He finished his report by stating “that it [was] impossible to say when and how the enforcement proceedings at issue shall be concluded”.
28.  On 7 March 2009 the bailiff made an attempt to enforce the fine, but it was to no avail due to the verbal and physical resistance of V.K.'s parents. Subsequently, the bailiff requested the President of the court to release her of the duty to enforce the fine.
29.  On 9 March 2009 V.K. was informed that the forcible payment of the fine would be executed on 13 March 2009. On 12 March 2009 V.K.'s father paid the fine imposed.
30.  On 17 March 2009 the Court of First Instance issued another enforcement order requesting that the children be surrendered to the applicant within three days, failing which V.K. would be fined EUR 1,000.
31.  On 10 September 2009, after the application had already been communicated to the respondent Government, the Court of First Instance issued a decision specifying that the order would be enforced on 8 October 2009, if need be, by means of a forcible transfer of custody.
32.  On 8 October 2009 V.K. refused to surrender the children, who, apparently, also resisted the transfer. The BSCC representative proposed that a forcible transfer of custody be postponed and the judge accepted to do so.
33.  On 23 October 2009, when the enforcement was to be attempted again, V.K. proposed that it be adjourned until the court had decided on his request for custody (see paragraphs 36-38 below), or that an interim period be allowed, with the participation of a family psychologist, to help the children to adapt to the new situation. The BSCC representative also suggested that a transitional period be allowed before the enforcement. The applicant insisted on the enforcement. The house was searched, but the children were not found. The applicant was invited to submit a proposal as to how the judgment could be further enforced as well as to inform the court on her possibility to provide the necessary labour force for the enforcement (“eventualnog obezbjeđenja potrebne radne snage”). At the same time, the police were invited to establish the whereabouts of the children.
34.  On 30 November 2009, during another attempt at enforcement, the children refused to go with the applicant, claiming that she had not treated them properly. After V.K.'s parents, who had resisted the enforcement, were removed, the judgment was enforced and the children were finally surrendered to the applicant.
35.  The applicant maintained that as of 5 January 2005 until 30 November 2009 she had only had sporadic and brief contact with her children, mostly in-between school classes and, even then, in the presence of V.K. or his father.
36.  On an unspecified date V.K. instituted a new civil complaint, seeking sole custody of the children.
37.  On 1 June 2009 the Court of First Instance ruled in his favour and ordered the applicant to pay monthly child maintenance. In so deciding, the court took account of an informal conversation that an expert psychiatrist had had with the children. The psychiatrist's conclusion was that A and B wanted to live with their father, that it would be stressful for them to be taken away from their present home, but that their mother needed to be allowed regular access. When specifically asked whether the children had been negatively directed towards their mother by their father, the expert responded by saying that “it [was] obvious that the children had been negatively directed towards their mother by an adult person”. The court noted that the children had been living with their father, contrary to the final judgment rendered in 2006, but that they had adapted to it and liked it. Finally, the court concluded that “the factual situation [had] lasted for far too long” and that it was in the children's interest to verify the situation.
38.  On 15 September 2009 the High Court in Podgorica quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance.
39.  On 16 February 2007 V.K. was found guilty of domestic violence, the victim being the applicant, and was sentenced to three months in prison, suspended for a period of two years. On 28 June 2007 the High Court in Podgorica overturned that judgment and dismissed the charges as the criminal prosecution had become time-barred.
40.  On 7 December 2007 the Court of First Instance in Kotor acquitted V.K. of charges of child abduction (oduzimanje maloljetnog lica) concluding that “[...] although the said acts of the accused contained all the elements of the criminal offence he had been charged with, the said offence represented an act of minor significance”. On 28 May 2008 the High Court in Podgorica upheld that judgment and it thereby became final.